Transcription

1 Subject: Title: Word count: Epistemology How should we think about the testimony of others? Is it reducible to other kinds of evidence? 2,707 1

2 How should we think about the testimony of others? Is it reducible to other kinds of evidence? In this essay I will argue that testimony is a basic source of knowledge that is not reducible to other kinds of evidence. This is the non- - - reductionist view, whereby a hearer is deemed to acquire knowledge automatically from the testimony she hears unless there are good reasons why the testimony or the testifier is unreliable. Reductionists, on the other hand, believe that in order to acquire knowledge from testimony the hearer must have positive reasons for accepting the testimony. These reasons are typically based on other sources of knowledge such as perception and induction; therefore testimony is said to be reducible to these other sources of knowledge. I will argue that non- - - reductionism is to be preferred as reductionism cannot account for the knowledge of young children. The non- - - reductionist view provides an intuitive explanation of how children acquire knowledge from testimony. Children s experience of the world is limited. Some knowledge is acquired through sense data, but progress would be very slow if this were the only source of knowledge to be relied upon. This view originates from Thomas Reid: The wise author of nature hath planted in the human mind a propensity to rely upon human testimony before we can give a reason for doing so. This, indeed, puts our judgments almost entirely in the power of those who are about us in the first period of life; but this is necessary both to our preservation and to our improvement. If children were so framed as to pay no regard to testimony or authority, they must, in the literal sense, perish for lack of knowledge. (Reid 1983: 281 2) It is not necessary to accept the idea of a God- - - given propensity to rely upon human testimony ; it could also be explained in evolutionary terms (see, for example, Burge 1993: 446) 2

3 It is in accounting for a child s knowledge that the non- - - reductionist seems to have a fundamental advantage. Children s acquisition of knowledge via testimony poses a problem for both global and local reductionist views. According to the global reductionist, before a hearer can accept any testimony as knowledge she must consider a significant number of instances of testimony given previously and compare these with the facts, i.e. how the world actually is, to determine whether testimony is in general reliable. Lackey (2008: 146) suggests that this process of extensive comparison required by the global reductionists seems implausible for adults. It is clearly beyond the cognitive abilities of young children. Local reductionism does not fare any better than its global counterpart. Instead of determining whether testimony is a reliable source of knowledge in general, the local reductionist demands that the hearer decide for each particular instance of testimony whether the testifier and the testimony are to be trusted. Lackey (2006: 441) gives the example of an 18 month old who has been told by her parents that the stove is hot. If the stove is in fact hot, it seems reasonable to suggest that the child knows that the stove is hot. It does not seem reasonable to suggest, however, that the child has good reasons for believing her parents. Even if her parents have told her lots of things before and they have always been true, does a child of this age really have the cognitive ability to make the connection between past instances of true testimony and this current case? There are two possible conclusions to draw here: either we accept reductionism and accept that young children cannot have knowledge or we maintain that young children can have knowledge and reject reductionism. A reductionist will be content to conclude that young children cannot have knowledge from testimony. If a child is incapable of forming good reasons to accept testimony then she cannot have knowledge. She has a true belief that the stove is hot but no justification for this belief. However, as Lackey points out, this seems to contradict our common sense view of young children s knowledge. If a child has the linguistic capacity to understand the testimony and the stove is hot 3

4 it seems perfectly reasonable to say that the child in the example above has knowledge. The problem with this argument, however, is that it is based on our intuitions about knowledge. Although Lackey s intuition is in this case that the child has knowledge, a reductionist will most likely have the opposite intuition. This highlights a problem with using intuitions, especially the intuitions of philosophers with a vested interest in their own theory of knowledge, to form a reliable basis for an argument. Perhaps if we consulted people on the street they would confirm the common sense intuition that young children can have knowledge from testimony. However, different experiences with children and different views on what it is know something suggest that we would be more likely to encounter a variety of intuitions. The common sense intuition that young children can have knowledge from testimony might be strengthened if we can provide additional reasons for this view. One option is to consider differences in behaviour. If I know p I will act differently to if I merely believe p. If I know something is hot then I will not touch it. If I believe it is hot, I might tentatively put my hand close to it to test my belief. If we return to the stove example, we could argue that if the child does not touch the stove after receiving the testimony this is evidence that she has knowledge. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that behaviours will be consistent among mature individuals let alone young children. A further possibility for establishing whether an adult knows p is whether the adult is willing to testify that p. Even if this is a reliable indication of knowledge in adults, it seems unlikely to be so for children as there is no way to know whether they are simply repeating what they have been told. Even if we concede that, in spite of our intuitions to the contrary, young children do not have knowledge, the reductionist is faced with a further challenge, namely explaining how and when children come to have knowledge later on. The obvious response is that children can have knowledge once they have the ability to reason inductively and thereby form good reasons for accepting testimony. However, this argument faces a regress problem. How do children learn to reason in this way if they have not previously accepted any testimony? In order 4

5 to know either that testimony in general or a particular testifier is reliable the child must use previous experience, where testimony has corresponded to the facts, but there will be a point when the child has no previous experience on which to draw. This is a fundamental problem for both local and global reductionists neither can explain how we can begin to acquire knowledge from testimony without already having knowledge gained from testimony. So far I have argued that if we accept the reductive view of testimony then children cannot have knowledge, but as children can have knowledge, or at the very least begin to acquire knowledge at some point, the reductive view must be false. However, does the non- - - reductive view really fare any better? Lackey (2008) argues that non- - - reductivists cannot account for the knowledge of young children either: [if] infants and young children are cognitively incapable of having positive reasons, then so, too, are they incapable of having negative reasons. (2008: 199). According to the non- - - reductionists, in order to acquire knowledge from testimony there must be no undefeated defeaters. Plantinga (2000: 361) defines a defeater as follows: A defeater for a belief b is another belief d such that, given my noetic structure, I cannot rationally hold b, given that I believe d." For Lackey defeaters can be either psychological or normative. A psychological defeater is a doubt or belief held by the subject (the receiver of the testimony) that indicates that the belief that p is either false or unjustified. A normative defeater is a doubt or belief that that subject ought to have that indicates that the speaker s belief that p is either false or unjustified. For example, I have a friend who thinks it is funny to make people believe things that are not true. So, when he tells me that an episode of Bergerac was filmed in his house, this belief is defeated by my existing, more general belief that my friend is prone to telling lies for comedic effect. This is a psychological defeater. A few year s ago another friend told me that he had a lot of redshanks in his garden. I believed his testimony, as I believed him to be a knowledgeable birdwatcher. However, this testimony did not constitute knowledge. I should have known that redshanks are waders, unlikely to be found in a hedge. My friend had seen redstarts. This is a normative defeater. 5

6 Lackey suggests that children, due to their cognitively immaturity, are unlikely to have developed their own psychological defeaters and are unlikely to be aware of normative defeaters. She argues that saying that children can satisfy the no undefeated defeater condition necessary to acquire knowledge is equivalent to saying that a chair can satisfy a no lying condition. It is impossible for a chair to lie and it is impossible for a child to have defeaters. The no undefeated defeater condition is satisfied by young children, but it is satisfied trivially (see Lackey 2008: 197ff). Whereas reductionism is too strong, not allowing children to be justified in believing when they intuitively are, non- - - reductionism is too weak, allowing children to be justified in believing when they intuitively are not (Lackey 2008: 200) Goldberg (2008) provides a response to Lackey s defeater problem. He accepts that young children are too trusting to be considered reliable epistemic agents. However, they are (almost) always in the presence of a caregiver who can help them determine which pieces of testimony are reliable. Caregivers provide the necessary defeaters to prevent children obtaining knowledge too easily. Under adult supervision, then, young children are reliable receivers of testimony and therefore can have knowledge. Although it seems sensible to assume that caregivers will try to prevent their children from forming false beliefs and help them to learn how to recognise unreliable testifiers, the role Goldberg ascribes to them seems too strong. First, there are going to be many times when the caregiver is not present or does not hear the testimony offered to the child. Secondly there may be cases where the caregiver simply chooses not to intervene. Thirdly, the amount and quality of epistemic supervision provided is likely to vary from child to child. Goldberg (2008: 26) argues that as well as providing defeaters to prevent children from obtaining knowledge too easily, caregivers can prevent children from acquiring knowledge that they otherwise would have been justified in acquiring. In his example a child s Mother sees Father take the milk out of the fridge. She knows that he tends to selfishly finish the milk and return the empty carton to the fridge. A third adult, Liz, tells the child that there is milk in the 6

7 fridge. Mother hears the testimony and assumes Liz did not see Father finish the milk. If Mother does not intervene on the child s behalf here, Goldberg argues, then the no relevant defeater condition has not been satisfied and so the child will not have knowledge. Even if, unbeknownst to Mother, Liz saw that the father did in fact put the milk back into the fridge untouched, and her testimony is reliable, the child will still not have knowledge. This does not seem right. If an adult who is reliable has told the child that there is milk in the fridge and there is milk in the fridge then the child knows there is milk in the fridge. Again, it seems that Goldberg gives the caregiver too much power. An alternative response to Lackey might be to question the concept of defeater. Lackey defines normative defeaters as beliefs that the speaker should have. Who determines what beliefs a speaker should have? If we take the bird watching example above, why should I have known that redshanks were waders? How do we determine which propositions fall within the set of normative defeaters and which are outside of it? The set of normative defeaters could be the set of all true propositions, but this will lead to universal scepticism as we could find a defeater to defeat any belief. For example Descartes sceptical argument that you do not know for sure that you are not dreaming will defeat any knowledge of the external world. If we want to avoid scepticism we must draw a line, but where should we draw it? Normative defeaters can be seen as reflecting the common knowledge of a community, but this still does not specify how we decide what is in or out. Perhaps the term defeater is vague. There are some propositions we can clearly exclude from the set, e.g. sceptical arguments, some we must include and a lot of borderline cases. If defeater is vague, then knowledge must also be vague, as any knowledge that may be defeated by a borderline defeater will be a borderline case of knowledge. Lackey s main criticism of non- - - reductionism seems to be that children are unreliable because they do not have enough existing knowledge to form defeaters. This raises similar questions to the reductionist view of testimony I argued against above. First, at what point do children have enough background knowledge to form defeaters? The common or background knowledge that 7

8 constitutes defeaters is built up throughout our lives. We might equally argue that a thirty year old cannot have knowledge compared with a sixty year old as the thirty year old has significantly fewer available defeaters. Secondly, how do children acquire the knowledge needed to form defeaters if they cannot rely on testimony? Non- - - reductivism, as described by Lackey, faces the same regress problem as the reductive view of testimony. In order to be able to evaluate either positive reasons for accepting testimony or negative reasons for rejecting it children must have some existing knowledge to work with. Specifically they must have some experience of what constitutes reliable or unreliable testimony from which they can reason inductively. It seems if we accept the claim that children need to be able to form either positive or negative reasons before they can accept testimony, not only is it impossible for young children to have knowledge, but it is also impossible for children to ever begin to have knowledge. In this essay I have argued that testimony is not reducible to other kinds of evidence. The reductive view is problematic as it entails that young children cannot have knowledge, which intuitively they can. Lackey (2008) argues that the non- - - reductive view faces the same problem as children cannot reliably recognise defeaters. Having rejected Goldberg s response to Lackey I argue instead that the concept of defeater needs to be reconsidered. The fundamental problem for both the reductive view of testimony and Lackey s interpretation of the non- - - reductive view is that of regress. In order to form reasons for accepting or rejecting testimony children need experience of testimony from which they can reason inductively. The simplest way to avoid this regress is to allow young children to acquire knowledge freely from testimony whenever they come to hold a true belief obtained from an objectively reliable testifier. Taking an externalist position with regards to testimonial justification allows children to gain knowledge from testimony without an existing base of knowledge. We can retain the idea that testimony is a source of knowledge in its own right, not reducible to other sources, yet it can be regulated by external factors to prevent knowledge being obtained too easily. 8

Reality in the Eyes of Descartes and Berkeley By: Nada Shokry 5/21/2013 AUC - Philosophy Shokry, 2 One person's craziness is another person's reality. Tim Burton This quote best describes what one finds

Stance Volume 3 April 2010 A Substantive Revision to Firth's Ideal Observer Theory ABSTRACT: This paper examines Ideal Observer Theory and uses criticisms of it to lay the foundation for a revised theory

Use Your Master s Thesis Supervisor This booklet was prepared in dialogue with the heads of studies at the faculty, and it was approved by the dean of the faculty. Thus, this leaflet expresses the faculty

Liberty University DigitalCommons@Liberty University Discipleship Materials Center for Global Ministries 2009 Step 10: How to develop and use your testimony to explain the gospel? Don Fanning Liberty University,

When Betting Odds and Credences Come Apart: More Worries for Dutch Book Arguments Darren BRADLEY and Hannes LEITGEB If an agent believes that the probability of E being true is 1/2, should she accept a

1. What is Cultural Relativism? 2. Is Cultural Relativism true? 3. What can we learn from Cultural Relativism? What is it? Rough idea: There is no universal truth in ethics. There are only customary practices

The John Locke Lectures 2009 Being Realistic about Reasons T. M. Scanlon Lecture 3: Motivation and the Appeal of Expressivism The cognitivist view I have been defending has two important features in common

1/6 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 5 December 2002 (1) (Community trade

Digging Deeper into Safety and Injury Prevention Data Amanda Schwartz: Have you ever wondered how you could make your center safer using information you already collect? I'm Amanda Schwartz from the Head

General Philosophy Dr Peter Millican, Hertford College Lecture 3: Induction Hume s s Fork 2 Enquiry IV starts with a vital distinction between types of proposition: Relations of ideas can be known a priori

FINAL DECISION complaint by: Mr E complaint about: the firm complaint reference: date of decision: April 2009 This final decision is issued by me, Robert Short, an ombudsman with the Financial Ombudsman

Chapter 1 Introduction to Correlation Suppose that you woke up one morning and discovered that you had been given the gift of being able to predict the future. Suddenly, you found yourself able to predict,

Instructor s Guide for Quick Interview and Salary Negotiation Video Overview Today s job market moves at a brisk pace, and you have to act fast in order to win the job of your dreams. That means pulling

DETERMINATION Case reference: Objector: Admission Authority: ADA/002492 Parent Trafford Council Date of decision: 6 August 2013 Determination In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and

GENERAL WRITING ADVICE Three Ways to Clarify Your Writing Write as if your reader were lazy, stupid, and mean. Lazy: He or she will not take the trouble to figure out what you mean if it is not blazingly

Critical Analysis So what does that REALLY mean? 1 The words critically analyse can cause panic in students when they first turn over their examination paper or are handed their assignment questions. Why?

I. Terms, Concepts. Introduction to Hypothesis Testing A. In general, we do not know the true value of population parameters - they must be estimated. However, we do have hypotheses about what the true

National Deaf Children s Society (NDCS) submission to Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry Employment support for disabled people: Access to Work Summary Access to Work (AtW) plays a vital role in

Ten Strategies to Encourage Academic Integrity in Large Lecture Classes Brian Udermann and Karrie Lamers Introduction Academic integrity has been and continues to be a lively topic of discussion on most

HOW TO PREPARE FOR YOUR PARENT INTERVIEW By The Testing Mom If you are applying to a private kindergarten, the parent interview is just one of the hoops you ll be jumping through. Many gifted programs,

Jesus and the Counsellor in John s Gospel In Jesus farewell speech, recorded in John s Gospel (chapters 13-17) Jesus introduces the disciples to one he calls the Counsellor. This Counsellor (the name itself

21 Discussion Guide Section #7: NOAH: A MAN OF FAITH 1. How did Noah show his faith in God? 2. How specific were the instructions God gave? 3. Describe the size of the ark. Read to the Group: Since the

James Shepherd, CEO You can be successful in merchant services. You can build a residual income stream that you own. You can create lasting relationships with local business owners that will generate referrals

Western Australia Legislation for Video Surveillance Devices This document is an analysis of the Western Australia Surveillance Devices Act 1998; its purpose is to highlight some widely held misconceptions

Week 32, John 20:24 31 Hook Icebreaker: Break your class into small groups, between four and six people. Ask the following questions: What is the definition of faith? How does someone s faith grow? Describe

QUESTIONING Assessing and Developing Children s Understanding and Thinking in Literacy through Effective Introduction This document has been produced to support the development of effective questioning

E-LOGOS/2006 ISSN 1121-0442 On Hermeneutics Jessica Rutt Hermeneutical Inquiry Over the past 150 years, hermeneutical inquiry has exploded on the modern scene as a methodology for the interpretation of

Sales Training Programme. Module 7. Objection handling workbook Workbook 7. Objection handling Introduction This workbook is designed to be used along with the podcast on objection handling. It is a self

c h a p t e r 2 6 THE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ANIMAL PAIN AND ANIMAL DEATH e lizabeth h arman 1. Animal Cruelty and Animal Killing In this paper, I will be concerned with this question: what follows from

Running head: HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH PROPOSAL 1 How to Write a Research Proposal: A Formal Template for Preparing a Proposal for Research Methods Insert Name Here Dallas Baptist University HOW TO WRITE

DIFFICULTIES AND SOME PROBLEMS IN TRANSLATING LEGAL DOCUMENTS Ivanka Sakareva Translation of legal documents bears its own inherent difficulties. First we should note that this type of translation is burdened

GAMING MACHINES ARRANGEMENT REVIEW Do you think the venue operator model is meeting the three objectives listed and why? How do you think the venue operator model could better achieve its operations? Financial

Panellists guidance for moderating panels (Leadership Fellows Scheme) Contents 1. What is an introducer?... 1 2. The role of introducers prior to the panel meeting... 2 Assigning of roles... 2 Conflicts

A Case Study in Semantic Fieldwork: Modality in Tlingit In this handout, I ll walk you step-by-step through one small part of a semantic fieldwork project on an understudied language: Tlingit, a Na-Dene

xxx Lesson 12 Johari Window Overview: This optional lesson provides a look into how we view ourselves and how others view us. It is also a model for opening up the lines of communication with others. It

Why Can t We All Just Get Along? Why Can t We All Just Get Along? Key Faith Foundation: God s Plan for Handling Family Conflict Key Scriptures: Genesis 4:1-12; Psalm 133; Colossians 3:12-15 Bible basis

15 Most Typically Used Interview Questions and Answers According to the reports made in thousands of job interviews, done at ninety seven big companies in the United States, we selected the 15 most commonly

KET for Schools Reading and Writing Part 9 teacher s notes Description This is a guided discovery activity to find out what candidates need to do in KET for Schools Reading and Writing Part 9. Students

1 Science and Religion Scripture: Colossians 1:15-20 By Pastor John H. Noordhof Williamsburg Christian Reformed Church October 21, 2012 Morning Service People of God: Today we will deal with the troubling

Prospect Theory Ayelet Gneezy & Nicholas Epley Word Count: 2,486 Definition Prospect Theory is a psychological account that describes how people make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. These may

country although enough southern heart beard dear hear mood shoot wool cool recent scenery society financial exhibit example examine expose It me three hours to do the job. took was came went The president

Chapter 4 Put-Call Parity 1 Bull and Bear Financial analysts use words such as bull and bear to describe the trend in stock markets. Generally speaking, a bull market is characterized by rising prices.

NPV Versus IRR W.L. Silber I. Our favorite project A has the following cash flows: -1 + +6 +9 1 2 We know that if the cost of capital is 18 percent we reject the project because the net present value is

We hope you enjoy this course. Most folks print a copy of the test and circle the answers while reading through the course. You can then log into your account (if you created one), enter your answers online,

Norwich Economics Papers June 2010 Is a monetary incentive a feasible solution to some of the UK s most pressing health concerns? ALEX HAINES A monetary incentive is not always the key to all of life's

Medjugorje visionary, Ivan, speaking to several thousand pilgrims today, August 18, 2010. Ivan was given special instructions from Our Lady concerning the youth and family. Being married to an American

What is a Credit Score and Why Do I Care What It Is? Your Credit Score is a lot like the score you get on a test. You get points for good credit decisions and behavior and you get points taken away for

PATENTS ACT 1977 IN THE MATTER OF Application No. GB 9808661.4 in the name of Pintos Global Services Ltd DECISION Introduction 1. Patent application number GB 9808661.4 entitled, A system for exchanging

Teenagers and Criminal Justice Did the Punishment Fit the Crime? Fact Situation Hi, my name is Costas and I m 16. I spent my summer at the courthouse. I was on trial and was found guilty of killing a guy

POLITE ENGLISH FREE ON-LINE COURSE Lesson 2: Giving advice version without a key WARM UP THINK Do you like giving advice? Do you often ask for advice? WATCH OUT! Do you know the difference between: ADVICE

Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning Glen B. Alleman Niwot, Colorado January 2004 glen.alleman@niwotridge.com Managers are people who do things right, while leaders are people who do the

The Value of British Gas Energy Trust Impact Report Summary Introduction At British Gas, we know that sometimes people struggle to pay their bills. There are lots of ways that we can help people who need

INTRUSION PREVENTION AND EXPERT SYSTEMS By Avi Chesla avic@v-secure.com Introduction Over the past few years, the market has developed new expectations from the security industry, especially from the intrusion

Online Banking, Bill Pay, and E-Statements ERROR RESOLUTION NOTICE In case of errors or questions about your electronic transfers, call or write us at the telephone number or address listed in this brochure,

Authority and Power Almost everyone has power over at least some others. To pretend otherwise can be extremely dangerous because it can lead to the abuse of the power we have but refuse to recognise. Jesus

Chapter Twelve PARENT AND CHILD Every person under the age of 18 is considered a minor in the State of Alaska. Upon your 18th birthday, you reach the age of majority. [AS 25.20.010.] Parents have certain

SELECTING A COMPETENT FIRE RISK ASSESS by a representative of the IFE Fire Risk Assessors' and Auditors' Register Professional Review Panel Introduction Previous speakers have identified, and examined,

TRUST PROTECTORS: WHO WILL WATCH THE WATCHMEN? Gregory S. Alexander * The emergence of the trust protector office is one of the major developments in American trust law during the past decade. As Stewart

At a glance Level: ISE III Independent Listening Task: Stereotypes Focus: Independent listening task Aims: To develop listening strategies when listening to a lecture on the use of stereotypes in education

Conditional Probability, Hypothesis Testing, and the Monty Hall Problem Ernie Croot September 17, 2008 On more than one occasion I have heard the comment Probability does not exist in the real world, and